Donald Trump the Megathread part II - Mod Warning updated in OP 12/2/26

It seems like you are trying to claim that Hegseth, by not being in the room, doesn't take ultimate responsibility.

He gave the order. The military followed that order, which, if they hadn't many on the right, would be screaming that it was anti-American and traitorous. So Hegseth gives the order, watches the boat blow up, and then leaves, assuming the mission is complete. As he said himself, he had meetings to go to.

Upon watching the live drone footage, it was determined that two men remained alive, and since Hegset had given a direct order that everyone was to be killed, as good soldier, that is exactly what was done.

The responsibility lies with Trump, ultimately, but certainly Hegseth.

I think that there will be lasting issues in relation to this event. Hegseth and Trump have shown that their instinct is to throw someone else under the bus, in this case Admiral Bradley. Loyalty is a 2 way street. Hegseth and Trump have not shown loyalty, they cannot expect loyalty to them in return from army generals and admirals.

Apparently is right. The actual report should be released with all the attached documentation of date, time, location, clinical history including the reason for the test, and the name of the radiologist(s) who read the images so it can be verified to at least some extent. As it is we are just getting prose from a regime minion who happens to be a doctor, about as useful as those ridiculous physicals Trump got in New York.

I used to think America was to be admired and copied for its candour on presidential health. How daft I was. Another thing I’d like to see released - all the actual BNP reports. This is a blood test for cardiac failure. We are told that the BNP is ‘normal’ and his swollen ankles are due to venous insufficiency. That may be the case but let’s have access to all the BNPs if there are multiple tests to exclude a trend of rising numbers and the possibility of early cardiac failure.

One good thing about the British parliamentary model - it’s inherently ageist and elitist. MPs/TDs have shown themselves reluctant to choose a leader who is elderly or inexperienced. Underemployed billionaires way past their sell by date aren’t able to waltz in to the top job as easily as Trump did in the US.

if this guy thinks you are guilty then you are in a whole lot of trouble.

He has an obligation to ignore a 'no quarter' order, he does not have an obligation to ignore a 'sink the boat' order, even if that order results in the deaths of all.

What about if that order results in a war crime? He's ordered to sink the boat, the moment those 'terrorists' were no longer a threat the original order (if followed) becomes a war crime.

Same way if upon closer inspection the occupants appear to be surrendering or are actually fishermen or they realize it's a cruise ship, the original order cannot be followed as it would result in a war crime.

It just screams of the aul 'just following orders' defense.

Manic, do you accept that Hegseth gave the initial order?

Do you acknowledge that Hegseth is in charge?

Do you acknowledge that had his orders not been clear enough, then the issue lies with him?

Do you acknowledge that had his orders not been to kill everyone, then the admiral should now be brought up on war crime charges, as he not only went against his direct order, he also went against the US handbook. And if true, why hasn't Hegseth stated that?

This isn't like in a war zone, when innocent people get caught in the crossfire or decisions are taken in the heat of an imminent threat to life.

There was no threat to the US from this boat. The drone could have simply continued to follow them and direct the coast guard to apprehend them. Even less so when the boat was blown up, leaving the survivors clinging to a destroyed boat in the middle of the ocean, and they posed no threat to anyone. So the only reason to go back and kill them was that it was the plan to do so.

I have a very poor impression of Hegseth from what I know of him.As with all these appointments he was chosen by Trump for his "loyalty" to Trump and his manner is absurdly intemperate (not alone in that of course)

Without evidence ,I ask myself how genuine and truthful he is at heart .

Are there good reasons to doubt his honesty or is my bias getting in the way?

Edit: hopefully a full Congessional enquiry will provide an answer in this instance.

Before the first strike it was a war crime. They have no concrete evidence of what these people were or what the cargo was. They became judge jury and executioner of non combatants in international waters. These people posed no imminent threat to the US, US military or US citizens. There was ample time and ability to intercept these boats, investigate and take these people to trail if necessary without any risk to US lives and they chose not to. Its no different than them blowing up a car on the M50 because they believe there was a person of interest in the vehicle.

Someone who is charged with bribery is being pardoned by someone who accepts bribes...

"How does that work?"

His cheque cleared

It's an unpleasant fact that we are talking about one boat and the two strikes it took for the U.S Navy, [following the orders issued by POTUS Trump and his Sec War, Hegseth to destroy and sink alleged drug-running boats off South America] to destroy and sink it and kill its crew.

It's worth noting that this is apparently the tenth boat and crew who suffered the same fate at the hands of the U.S Navy in line with the stated policy of the Trump Administration but they did not get as much as a word raised about their fate so maybe the fact that two crew members of boat 10 survived the initial attack may force a change, however slight, in Trump's war against the Drug gangs outside the U.S, unless, of course, none of the crews of the other boats were not also killed in a similar manner by the U.S. forces.

Why does the States not have a programme to wean addicts off the drugs they say are coming into America in these boats?

And why are Americans allowed to subsidise the cartels who ,from what I have heard are terrorising communities in South America in order to supply the American market with illegal drugs?